STANDARDS

Common Core: RH.6-8.1, RH.6-8.2, RH.6-8.4, RH.6-8.7, RH.6-8.8, WHST.6-8.4, WHST.6-8.9, RI.6-8.1, RI.6-8.2, RI.6-8.4, RI.6-8.7, RI.6-8.8, W.6-8.4, W.6-8.9, SL.6-8.1, SL.6-8.2, SL.6-8.6

NCSS: Time, Continuity, and Change • Individuals, Groups, and Institutions • Power, Authority, and Governance • Civic Ideals and Practices

Illustration by Zohar Lazar

U.S. HISTORY | CIVICS

Great Debates From History: 1787

The Federalists vs. the Antifederalists

Discover the heated, high-stakes Constitutional clash that shaped our country.

Click here to take a Prereading Quiz before you read this article.

It’s 1787, and the United States is a mess. The young nation is deep in debt. The 13 states refuse to work together. And there’s no central leader to do anything about it. 

How did this happen? Blame the first U.S. constitution, called the Articles of Confederation. It gives almost all power to the individual states. The central government is so weak that it can’t even enforce laws. 

But there is still hope. Delegates from the states have gathered at a convention in Pennsylvania to find a solution. Some say the Articles can be fixed. Others want to start over.

After months of debate, they write a new Constitution. It sets up a strong federal government. Using a quill pen, a majority of the men sign it. 

The document can’t take effect, however, unless nine states ratify, or approve, it. Each state will hold its own special convention to decide. 

Quickly, two groups emerge. The Federalists like the new Constitution. The Antifederalists don’t. They think Americans’ freedoms are better protected by state governments. 

Both sides give speeches and publish essays to persuade the states. Turn the page to jump into three of their biggest debates.

It is 1787. The United States is a mess. The young nation is deep in debt. The 13 states refuse to work together. And there is no central leader to do anything about it.

How did this happen? Blame the first U.S. constitution. It is called the Articles of Confederation. It gives almost all power to the individual states. The central government is very weak. It cannot even enforce laws.

But there is still hope. Delegates from the states have gathered at a convention in Pennsylvania. They want to find a solution. Some say the Articles can be fixed. Others want to start over.

They debate it for months. Then they write a new Constitution. It sets up a strong federal government. A majority of the men sign it using a quill pen.

But the document cannot take effect unless nine states ratify, or approve, it. Each state will hold its own special convention to decide.

Soon two groups form. The Federalists like the new Constitution. The Antifederalists do not. They think Americans’ freedoms are better protected by state governments.

Both sides give speeches and publish essays to persuade the states. Turn the page to jump into three of their biggest debates.

Illustration by Zohar Lazar

From left: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and Robert Yates were among the most outspoken voices in the Constitution debate.

1. How strong should the federal government be?

This was the main clash between the two groups. Article VI of the Constitution states that federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land.” This is known as the supremacy clause. If federal and state laws conflict, federal laws win out in most cases.

The Antifederalists argued that Article VI would make the federal government too strong. States should have more control, they said, because they better understand the needs of their citizens. A supreme federal government would “swallow up all the powers of the state governments,” wrote Robert Yates, an Antifederalist from New York. This, he argued, would lead to tyranny, a cruel and unfair form of government in which one person or group has total control over everyone.

But the Federalists insisted the U.S. government needed the authority to force the states to follow laws—otherwise, the country would remain as disorganized as it was under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison, a Federalist from Virginia, wrote, “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.” Plus, the Federalists added, any powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution would still belong to the states.

This was the main disagreement between the two groups. Article VI of the Constitution says that federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land.” This is known as the supremacy clause. It says what happens if federal and state laws conflict. In most cases, federal laws win.

The Antifederalists argued that Article VI would make the federal government too strong. They said states should have more control because states understand the needs of their citizens better. Robert Yates was an Antifederalist from New York. He wrote that a supreme federal government would “swallow up all the powers of the state governments.” He argued that this would lead to tyranny. Tyranny is a cruel and unfair form of government in which one person or group has total control over everyone.

But the Federalists argued that the U.S. government needed the authority to force the states to follow laws. Otherwise, the country would stay as disorganized as it was under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison was a Federalist from Virginia. He wrote, “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.” The Federalists added that any powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution would still belong to the states.

2. Is a president necessary? 

The Constitution splits the government into three parts: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is led by the president. To the Antifederalists, this sounded a lot like the monarchy America had just left behind in Great Britain. They feared that “president” actually meant “elected king.” 

Antifederalist Patrick Henry of Virginia argued that a president could misuse the military to stay in power. “What have you to oppose this force?” he asked voters in his state. “What will then become of you and your rights?” 

Some Antifederalists pushed for an executive council made up of a few people instead.

The Federalists countered that a powerful president would enforce laws and keep the country safe from foreign attacks. Plus, a single leader would be easier to hold accountable than a group, which could “conceal faults and destroy responsibility,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist from New York.

The Constitution splits the government into three parts: executive, legislative, and judicial. The president leads the executive branch. The Antifederalists thought this sounded a lot like the monarchy America had just left behind in Great Britain. They feared that “president” really meant “elected king.”

Patrick Henry of Virginia was an Antifederalist. He argued that a president could misuse the military to stay in power. “What have you to oppose this force?” he asked voters in his state. “What will then become of you and your rights?”

Some Antifederalists wanted an executive council made up of a few people instead of a president.

But the Federalists argued that a powerful president would enforce laws and keep the country safe from foreign attacks. And a single leader would be easier to hold accountable than a group. A group could “conceal faults and destroy responsibility,” wrote Alexander Hamilton. He was a Federalist from New York.

3. Do individual freedoms need to be guaranteed in writing? 

In the final days of the 1787 convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—an Antifederalist from Virginia named George Mason suggested adding a Bill of Rights. Listing Americans’ individual freedoms would help reassure people who were concerned about a strong federal government, he said. 

The other delegates rejected Mason’s idea. But he had foreseen a major complaint about the Constitution. He and other Antifederalists believed people’s personal rights—such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press—needed to be spelled out in order to safeguard them. 

A Bill of Rights, they said, would help protect individual citizens from the government. 

The Federalists, however, felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. The Constitution didn’t grant the government control over the press or speech or religion, they said. So why did they need another document protecting those rights? They also worried that listing all of people’s individual freedoms was impossible. If they forgot one, what then?

That 1787 convention is now known as the Constitutional Convention. In its final days, George Mason suggested adding a Bill of Rights. Mason was an Antifederalist from Virginia. He said listing Americans’ individual freedoms would reassure people who were concerned about a strong federal government.

The other delegates rejected the idea. But Mason had predicted a major complaint about the Constitution. He and other Antifederalists believed that people’s personal rights needed to be spelled out in order to protect them. Such rights include freedom of speech, religion, and the press. They thought a Bill of Rights would help protect individual citizens from the government.

But the Federalists felt that a Bill of Rights was not needed. They said the Constitution did not grant the government control over the press or speech or religion. So why did they need another document protecting those rights? They also worried that listing all of people’s individual freedoms was impossible. What if they forgot one?

And The Winner Was...

Illustration by Zohar Lazar

The Federalists, mostly. Their arguments convinced enough states that the new Constitution, though not perfect, was a big improvement over the Articles of Confederation. Plus, the document could be amended, or changed. In fact, several states suggested amendments to the Constitution at the same time they voted to ratify it, notes Henry L. Chambers Jr., a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. 

“Clearly, those states were saying: This is a step along the way. We’re going to ratify, but we know we’re not done,” Chambers explains. 

In December 1787, Delaware became the first state to approve the Constitution. Other states followed. In June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify—the last vote needed. On March 4, 1789, the date set by Congress, the Constitution officially became the law of the land.

Though they had not  supported the Constitution, the Antifederalists did leave their mark on it. In 1789, the very first Congress under the Constitution agreed that it was important to protect Americans from too much government control. Two years later, the freedoms that Antifederalists had demanded became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. 

The Federalists, mostly. They convinced enough states to support the new Constitution. It was not perfect, but it was a big improvement over the Articles of Confederation. Plus, it could be amended, or changed. In fact, several states suggested amendments to the Constitution at the same time they voted to ratify it, notes Henry L. Chambers Jr. He is a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

“Clearly, those states were saying: This is a step along the way. We’re going to ratify, but we know we’re not done,” Chambers explains.

In December 1787, Delaware became the first state to approve the Constitution. Other states followed. In June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify. That was the last vote needed. The Constitution officially became the law of the land on March 4, 1789. That date was set by Congress.

The Antifederalists had not supported the Constitution. But they did leave their mark on it. In 1789, the very first Congress under the Constitution agreed it was important to protect Americans from too much government control. Two years later, the freedoms that Antifederalists had demanded became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. They are known as the Bill of Rights.

Who Said It?

Now that you’ve learned what the Federalists and the Antifederalists believed, it’s time to put your skills to the test. Read each quote carefully. Then decide whether it came from a Federalist or an Antifederalist.

1

“A bill of rights is neither an essential nor a necessary instrument in framing a system of government, since liberty may exist and be as well secured without it.”

1

“A bill of rights is neither an essential nor a necessary instrument in framing a system of government, since liberty may exist and be as well secured without it.”

James Wilson, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, made this statement. He and other Federalists did not think the Constitution needed to list citizens’ individual rights to protect them.

James Wilson, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, made this statement. He and other Federalists did not think the Constitution needed to list citizens’ individual rights to protect them.

2

“Is it to be supposed that one National Government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs?”

2

“Is it to be supposed that one National Government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs?”

George Mason, an Antifederalist from Virginia, made this statement. Like many Antifederalists, he thought state governments should have more control than the national government. Mason said individual states better understood the needs of their citizens.

George Mason, an Antifederalist from Virginia, made this statement. Like many Antifederalists, he thought state governments should have more control than the national government. Mason said individual states better understood the needs of their citizens.

3

“There is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers—the powers of a King. He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence; So that the whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure.”

3

“There is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers—the powers of a King. He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence; So that the whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure.”

Patrick Henry, an Antifederalist from Virginia, spoke these words. He and other Antifederalists feared that a strong president would misuse the position’s power and rule like a king.

Patrick Henry, an Antifederalist from Virginia, spoke these words. He and other Antifederalists feared that a strong president would misuse the position’s power and rule like a king.

4

“A feeble [weak] Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.”

4

“A feeble [weak] Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.”

Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist from New York, penned these words. Like many other Federalists, he argued that the national government could not succeed unless it had a strong executive, or president, leading it.

Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist from New York, penned these words. Like many other Federalists, he argued that the national government could not succeed unless it had a strong executive, or president, leading it.

Interactive Quiz for this article

Click the Google Classroom button below to share the Know the News quiz with your class.

Download .PDF
videos (1)
Skills Sheets (7)
Skills Sheets (7)
Skills Sheets (7)
Skills Sheets (7)
Skills Sheets (7)
Skills Sheets (7)
Skills Sheets (7)
Lesson Plan (2)
Lesson Plan (2)
Article (1)
Leveled Articles (1)
Text-to-Speech